Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
16 FIGURE 4 Challenges to implementing noise abatement flight tracks at surveyed airports. "moderately effective" or "very effective" at reducing noise noise outside DNL 65, and 38% that their procedures were over noise-sensitive communities outside DNL 65, but some- developed to address noise issues both inside and outside what less effective at reducing complaints outside DNL 65. DNL 65. The most common types of procedures are iden- Also, a higher percentage of respondents reported that flight tified in Figure 7; they include physical construction of tracks are "very effective" at reducing noise (36%) than report blast fences (31%), ground runup enclosures (GRE) (11%), flight procedures as being "very effective" (19%). and noise barriers/berms (20%); as well as runup proce- dures (29%), pre-takeoff runup policies (23%), reverse thrust policies (14%); and simply moving the aircraft away from AIRCRAFT GROUND NOISE CONTROL noise-sensitive communities (23%). Twenty-four of 35 airports (69%) reported some procedures Ground noise control procedures are implemented using to minimize noise from aircraft operations on the ground, formal rules and regulations (26%), informal means such as such as taxi and pre-takeoff runups; of these, 38% said the tower or air traffic controller coordination (14%), or both for- procedures were primarily to address noise within DNL 65, mal and informal means (31%). These procedures are com- 25% that the procedures were developed primarily to address municated to pilots by posters (43%), briefings (31%), and Reducing Not at all effective complaints Somewhat effective Moderately effective Reducing noise Very effective 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Respondents FIGURE 5 Effectiveness of noise abatement flight tracks at surveyed airports.
OCR for page 15
17 Reducing Not at all effective complaints Somewhat effective Moderately effective Reducing noise Very effective 0 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Respondents FIGURE 6 Effectiveness of noise abatement procedures at surveyed airports. FIGURE 7 Types of ground noise procedures at surveyed airports. FIGURE 8 Effectiveness of ground noise procedures at surveyed airports.
OCR for page 15
18 other means such as airport operations or maintenance brief- Airports were very aware of implementation costs for capi- ings (40%). Respondents reported that the greatest implemen- tal expenditures such as GREs, but had little information on tation challenges are communication with pilots (34%), com- costs of other operational programs, and little information on munication with ground control (11%), and communication costs to operators. The maximum reported airport cost was with the community (11%). Other implementation challenges $8 million for a GRE, with the FAA contributing 80%. Respon- reported included taxi time, fuel costs and emissions, and oper- dents reported that ground noise control procedures are "very ations staff enforcing curfew rules. effective" at reducing noise complaints (52%) (see Figure 8).